ArticleFrontiers in medicine2022
A bibliometric analysis of publications on burn sepsis using VOSviewer.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Mapping research trends of insulin resistance in polycystic ovary syndrome from 2017 to 2021: A bibliometric analysis.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2022Pooled it
- Trends in Physical Activity Research on Tobacco and/or Alcohol: A Bibliometric Analysis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Research trends related to emergence agitation in the post-anaesthesia care unit from 2001 to 2023: A bibliometric analysis.Open medicine (Warsaw, Poland) · 2024Article
- Bibliometric analysis of RNA vaccines for cancer.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Sepsis is one of the most common complications in burn patients and causes high morbidity, especially in those with severe burns. Nevertheless, there are no formal criteria for diagnosing and treating burn sepsis. Therefore, this bibliometric analysis is applied to reveal research trends in this field and predicts its possible hot spots. Methods: We screened relevant literature on burn sepsis that met the inclusion criteria of the Web of Sciences (WOS) database and analyzed publication trends and research hot spots in related fields using VOSviewer software. Results: From 1981 to 2022, we screened 2,486 documents that met the requirements and analyzed them bibliometrically. The American scholar Herndon DN had a much higher h-index [47] than other authors. Most published, cited, and h-indexed publications are from the USA (Np: 1193, Nc: 42154, H: 98). The second most publishing country is China, but the second most cited and h-indexed country is Germany. Burns also outperforms other journals in this field (Np: 376, Nc: 8019, H: 46). "Biomarkers" is a newly emerging keyword (cluster "clinical research," APY was 2018.16), and clinically relevant research in burn sepsis maybe a future research trend. Conclusions: Sepsis in burn patients has unique pathophysiological characteristics and the general diagnostic criteria for sepsis lack specificity. Consequently, we must establish a database and construct an intelligent predictive model to help achieve a more individualized and precise early diagnosis and treatment of burn sepsis. This may also be an important development direction for future research in this field.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.